Trifunovski v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Commissioner's determination that plaintiff is not entitled to an increase in benefits under the SSA is AFFIRMED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 4/4/2016. (lah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PETE TRIFUNOVSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.
5:15-CV-0525 (DEP)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

FOR PLAINTIFF
PETE TRIFUNOVSKI, Pro se
3362 Woods Road
Baldwinsville, NY 13027
FOR DEFENDANT
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
P.O. Box 7198
100 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198
DAVID E. PEEBLES
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JEREMY A. LINDEN, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER
Currently pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff
seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the
Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), are
cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. 1 Oral argument was heard in
connection with those motions on March 31, 2016, during a telephone
conference conducted on the record. At the close of argument, I issued a
bench decision in which, after applying the requisite deferential review
standard, I found that the Commissioner=s determination resulted from the
application of proper legal principles and is supported by substantial
evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing
the specific issues raised by the plaintiff in this appeal.
After due deliberation, and based upon the court=s oral bench
decision, which has been transcribed, is attached to this order, and is
incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby

1

This matter, which is before me on consent of the parties pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 636(c), has been treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in General
Order No. 18. Under that General Order once issue has been joined, an action such as
this is considered procedurally, as if cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings had
been filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

ORDERED, as follows:
1)

Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings is

GRANTED.
2)

The Commissioner=s determination that the plaintiff's retirement

insurance benefit had been calculated correctly, and thus plaintiff is not
entitled to an increase in benefits under the Social Security Act, is
AFFIRMED.
3)

The clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon

this determination, DISMISSING plaintiff=s complaint in its entirety.
4)

The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to the

plaintiff in accordance with this court's local rules.

Dated:

April 4, 2016
Syracuse, NY

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
PETE TRIFUNOVSKI,
Plaintiff,
vs.

5:15-CV-525

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------x
Transcript of a Decision held during a
Telephone Conference on March 31, 2016, at the
James Hanley Federal Building, 100 South Clinton
Street, Syracuse, New York, the HONORABLE DAVID E.
PEEBLES, United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding.

A P P E A R A N C E S
(By Telephone)
For Plaintiff:

PETE TRIFUNOVSKI, Pro Se
3362 Woods Road
Baldwinsville, New York 13027

For Defendant:

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of Regional General Counsel
Region II
26 Federal Plaza Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
BY: JEREMY A. LINDEN, ESQ.

Jodi L. Hibbard, RPR, CSR, CRR
Official United States Court Reporter
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13261-7367
[phone]

14
(The following is an excerpt from the

1

telephone conference held on 3/31/16.)

2

(In Chambers, Mr. Trifunovski and Mr. Linden

3

present via telephone.)

4

THE COURT:

5

Okay.

Well, you have asked me to

6

review a determination by the Commissioner.

7

limited, I have to ensure that proper legal principles were

8

applied, and that the determination of the Commissioner is

9

supported by substantial evidence.
In this case, there really doesn't seem to be any

10
11

My role is

dispute about the underlying facts so the calculation --

12

MR. TRIFUNOVSKI:

13

THE COURT:

But I --

Please don't interrupt me, I'm -- this

14

is my decision.

And if you disagree, you have a right to

15

appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The calculation began with average indexed monthly

16
17

earnings which the agency calculated at 2,055 which is

18

actually higher than the plaintiff calculated, his

19

calculation was 678 so that benefits the plaintiff, the

20

increase.

21

The first dispute is the first ben. point and it is

22

very clear under the regulations, RS 605.900 that the correct

23

first ben. point is $749 because it is clear that

24

Mr. Trifunovski turned 62 in 2011, and if you multiply that

25

by .9, the first, the first element or component of the

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

15
1

benefit is $674.10.

The second ben. point is supplied by

2

multiplying the difference between, in this case 2,055 and

3

749, by .32.

4

benefit before adjustment for early retirement of 10 -- of

5

1,092.02 per month.

6

retirement, five-ninths of a percent for the first 36 months

7

prior to age 66, five-twelfths of 1 percent for the remaining

8

six months because he was 42 months shy of normal retirement

9

age.

It is, the result is $417.92 so there's a

The reduction is made for early

Rounding down from $846.32 which is the figure I got,

10

the benefit monthly is $846.

11

cost of living increases and is now 876.70.

12

is pursuant to the regulations, it is supported by

13

substantial evidence.

14

to the defendant, I will confirm the Commissioner's

15

determination.

16

It has since been adjusted for
I find that that

I will award judgment on the pleadings

Mr. Trifunovski, you have a right to appeal.

Your

17

notice of appeal should be filed within 30 days of the date

18

that judgment is entered on my decision, okay?

19
20

MR. TRIFUNOVSKI:

So your decision is this is

right, right?

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. TRIFUNOVSKI:

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. TRIFUNOVSKI:

25

Thank you.

Yes.
What they giving to me, right?

Correct, yes.
I think that's fraud, man, is

absolute fraud.

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

16
1

THE COURT:

2

MR. TRIFUNOVSKI:

3

Okay, thank you.
Okay, bye.

(Proceedings Adjourned, 4:23 p.m.)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

1

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

2
3
4

I, JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR, Federal

5

Official Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the

6

United States District Court for the Northern

7

District of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that

8

pursuant to Section 753, Title 28, United States

9

Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct

10

transcript of the stenographically reported

11

proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and

12

that the transcript page format is in conformance

13

with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of

14

the United States.

15
16

Dated this 4th day of April, 2016.

17
18
19

/S/ JODI L. HIBBARD

20

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

21
22
23
24
25

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]